The Geography of White Population Loss

THE WHITE POPULATION is barely growing and, in about 10 years, will begin to decline — a consequence of an old age structure, fewer births, more deaths, and little immigration. What that means is that many places, especially those experiencing out-migration, are already experiencing white population losses. During the first decade of this century, white population losses were registered for 15 states, nearly half of our 360 metropolitan areas, and over half of our 3,100 counties.

Where are the losses occurring? A look at white growth and decline over the 1990-2010 period provides a perspective (see map, from my book “Diversity Explosion”). Some areas that are seeing declines in their white population caused by migration — particularly many counties in the Great Plains, the Midwest, and parts of the South — are also experiencing an excess of deaths over births in their white populations.

States losing white population fall into two categories: those in which employment slowdowns have triggered major out-migration (e.g., Michigan, Ohio), and urbanized coastal states with high costs of living (e.g., California, New York, New Jersey). In fact, metropolitan New York and Los Angeles lost over 1 million whites each between 1990 and 2010.

The areas that are gaining whites overlap heavily with those that are attracting dispersing minorities — prosperous and affordable parts of the Southeast, Southwest, and Mountain West — including suburbs, exurbs, and smaller metropolitan areas. But it’s pretty clear that, going forward, the nation’s white population shifts will be a “zero-sum” game: As some areas experience greater white population gains, others will suffer losses.

…Many of us involved in the grassroots effort to restore population sanity to the Sierra Club were suspicious that the

mysterious $100 million in donations might have
immigration strings attached.
After all, the 1996 switch from

common sense to political correctness was an abrupt change from the
earlier position that the Club should work to “bring about the stabilization of the population first of the United States and then of the world.”

Our suspicions were correct. The LA TIMES article revealed that shadowy funder Gelbaum donated generously on condition that the Sierra Club not address immigration as an environmental issue.

Said Gelbaum, “I did tell [Sierra Club Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”

The story continued:
“Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I.

” `I asked, `Abe, what do you think about all of these Mexicans coming here?` `Gelbaum said. `Abe didn`t speak English that well. He said, `I came here. How can I tell them not to come?“

“I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents.”

Gelbaum’s reasoning is patently anti-environmental. It assumes that this country can absorb millions of new foreign residents annually who come with dreams of
American level consumption.

Thoughtful conservationists balance past values versus a future reality of a population explosion. Most cannot imagine the world a hundred years ago.

What if Grandaddy Abe had been a slave-owner, deeply worried about who would pick the cotton come emancipation?

And surely Gelbaum`s grandfather could not have foreseen the invasion of millions of illegals, largely from Mexico.

And if
safety for Jews is still an issue as it was for Gelbaum`s Ukrainian forebears, then the
“strongly anti-Semitic” views of 44 percent of foreign-born Hispanics should be of great concern. Gelbaum may be unwittingly supporting the increase of
anti-Semitism in America which his grandfather sough

This is a scenario where jews are a real problem. Wall St. mogul Gelbaum should have formed his own environmental activism non-profit organization, not bribe the largely WASP Sierra Club’s leaders into accomodating the minority jewish position that was unpopular with most of the members at the time: https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_24_4/tsc_24_4_walker.shtml . But if he did form his own organization, he knew the old Sierra club, with its view on immigration, would keep the lion’s share of members. How many members could he draw? Gelbaum’s goal then can only be viewed as subversion of the popular ideal. The website also reveals his undermining of another: CA prop 187, meant to limit illegal immigration through reducing social services, by his funding of legal action against it. Don’t such jews smell their own toxicity to national unity?

Many will recall Jew Paul Ehrlich, Ph.D., a biology professor at Stanford, who wrote The Population Bomb, which discouraged many from having children. And, if you discourage those arguably with a conscience from having children, you are in effect eliminating conscience from the population.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (check box).

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.